Carney on Benghazi attackers: It took years to get Bin Laden, you know

posted at 7:21 pm on May 1, 2014 by Guy Benson

Jay Carney faced a second consecutive day of sustained questioning from reporters regarding the White House’s political response to the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. Yesterday he suggested that lead inquisitor Jonathan Karl might have been too jet-lagged to formulate coherent questions. Today he smirked and chuckled through many of the questions, taking personal jabs at correspondent Ed Henry and his current employer, Fox News:

The White House spokesman’s bottom line remains unchanged: The controversial, previously-undisclosed Ben Rhodes email shaping Susan Rice’s talking points…wasn’t about Benghazi. I’ll address that notion in greater detail in a moment, but Carney also repeated the stale mantra that the administration is committed to bringing the killers to justice. Someone finally challenged him on that point at the briefing, asking why zero arrests have been made nearly 20 months removed from the attacks. The Washington Postreported in December that US officials have described such efforts as “stalled.” Meanwhile, nobody at the State Department has been held accountable, and two of the central figures in the misleading talking points phase of the scandal have received promotions. Carney’s response? Ask Osama:

Carney to those who wonder if Benghazi perpetrators will face justice: “ask the friends and family members of Osama bin Laden”

The unsubtle subtext: It took years to get Bin Laden, so relax. Granted, it did take many years of painstaking work by our intelligence community to locate Bin Laden (they were aided, incidentally, by some indispensable Bush-era policies). And, yes, it took Obama’s bold order and the remarkable bravery and efficiency of our SEALs to liquidate him. The guy was holed up in a major Pakistani city — a very tightly-held secret — and he avoided the internet and phones like the plague. Some of the known Benghazi attackers, by contrast, have been freely roaming around Libya for more than a year. One of them is a former Guantanamo Bay detainee. Another is so brazen that he’s done interviews with Western media outlets. CNN last July:

The Bin Laden analogy may not be quite as clever and applicable as Carney thinks it is. In another puzzling exchange, one of the reporters asked if the White House today has a “firm grasp” of what happened that night, despite the haze of confusion Carney described in the aftermath of the attacks. Carney demurred, citing an “active investigation.” Again, it’s been 20 months. They still can’t say what exactly went down? Hmm. But let’s circle back to the administration’s primary point about the newly-unearthed Benghazi memo: That it’s, um, not a Benghazi memo. Believing this spin requires several levels of delusion. It requires the belief that senior White House officials were intimately involved in crafting Susan Rice’s talking points about everything other than the attacks that killed a sitting US Ambassador. It also requires the belief that the Rhodes email’s implicit and explicit references to Benghazi weren’t really about Benghazi. Ed Henry asked why a FOIA lawsuit specifically seeking Benghazi documents would turn up an email that was unrelated to the issue. Carney’s reply, aside from his snide digs at Fox, was essentially, “um, ask the State Department.” But these relevant pieces of evidence, to some extent, miss the forest for the trees. Rhodes’ email was sent on the evening of September 14, 2012 — three days after the deadly raid. That very same day, President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Jay Carney all linked the Benghazi attacks to the “internet video” described in Rhodes’ bullet points. Here’s Carney doing so:

“These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region…we have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned attack.”

Oh, but they did. The United States government knew with certainty that Benghazi was a choreographed act of terrorism “almost immediately.” The infamous CIA talking points, which Carney referenced ad nauseam today, never mentioned the online video angle. That fact has been affirmed by the agency’s former deputy director, under oath. A contemporaneous news report suggested that CIA analysts were “seething with anger” that the video had been invoked within the context of Benghazi. The State Department’s second-in-command on the ground that night described the online clip as a “non event” in Libya. Yet officials at the very highest levels of the administration injected that narrative into their public statements, and continued to do so for weeks. Carney is currently trying to parse this issue to death, offering convoluted explanations as to why the Rhodes email wasn’t technically an instance of the White House influencing Rice’s Benghazi talking points. He’s wrong about that, but it’s almost a moot point. Tying the video to Benghazi was a bona fide White House talking point days before Susan Rice appeared on those Sunday talk shows. Again, that baseless linkage didn’t come from the CIA. So where did it come from (if not the White House), and why was it reiterated long after the terrorism angle had been confirmed? Carney will be the first to tell you that merely asking these questions makes one party to “politicized” Republican “conspiracy theories.”

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Hey Carney, remember you are looking the American people in the eye when you speak. You are a shameful liar and I don’t know how you sleep at night. Also, you may think you are fooling everyone and may be fooling some, but the foreign leaders and countries know you are LYING.

I’ve never been fond of these ‘spokesmen’ for the presidents…ether side of the aisle. It’s their job to lie, connive and manipulate for their boss, and I’ve always understood that it takes a particular sort of personality to do that day after day with no break for personal conscience…. but Carney is the first one that I’ve actively despised.

Carney will be the first to tell you that merely asking these questions makes one party to “politicized” Republican “conspiracy theories.”

Or maybe un-American? Wasn’t the meme these douch-bags were using before?

Asking these questions finally makes SOME in the media American again – doing their duty, getting some spine. The press has been absent since 2008 – they were mere cheerleaders for “a great cause”. They checked their “white male privilege” at the door – the WH door.

They were as shameful as these buffoons in the Admin. Maybe they are finally waking up from their hangover?????

So the only thing we’ve learned from all this is that there are no repercussions whatsoever. Carney pretends to care along with everyone else and that’s that. For all the hysterics this is nothing more than a story-non-story in that it’ll be dead by next week b/c playoffs or some other dumb shiit. Tell me why I should give a fuk Guy about anything going forward. Should I continue to pay taxes? obey the law? root for the suck monkey Jets? Why play the game when it’s obvious that the best players are the ones that don’t? Nothing will come of this and I almost don’t care anymore.

OBL the hardened jihadi with money from his Saudi family, the guy who was able to mastermind plots and form up a large terror organization to then put together more complex plots in multiple Nations globally.

Whoever did this isn’t no OBL.

I’ve seen what an OBL can do and whoever is behind this is a slacker.

The slacker OBL-wannabe for the slacker President-wannabeonthegolfcourse.

Just wait for Carney’s reaction when someone starts asking loudly and publicly about Obama’s evidently-more-important-than-the-lives-of-our-Ambassador-and-three-other-brave-Americans fundraiser in Vegas on September 12.

Poor little Jay Carney, having to respond to tough questions from one tiny cable news network. What a whining crybaby. Republican press secretaries had to deal with non-stop accusations every single day from every other network on the airwaves. And they did it with grace and confidence, relying on facts not manufactured excuses and lies.

The lot of them, Obama, Holder, Carney and company, are thin-skinned spoiled brats pampered by their MSM cohorts, incompetent to the max, never responsible for anything and always blaming others.

Anyone else catch Bret Baier’s broadcast on FOX earlier today? He had Tommy Vietor on and maintained an EFFORT to question Vietor.

To those unfamiliar with the name, Tommy Vietor is “former NSC Spokesperson”.

Vietor admitted to “being in the White House” and “in the Situation Room” the night of the Benghazi tragedy (only he didn’t use the word, “tragedy” to describe it — I applied that description here in comments — Vietor referred to it as “incident” or something similar).

Vietor first blustered an interruption to that line of questioning, gushing out, “let me finish my statement” or similar (“let me finish what I was saying” or to that effect, “let me finish”)…obviously avoiding Baier’s question about Obama’s whereabouts.

Vietor again affirmed that he, Vietor, was “in the White House” and added “in the Sit. Room”…and then went on in some sort of dwindling point, instead of addressing Baier’s question about Obama’s whereabouts, and quite obviously, Vietor didn’t know whattheheck he ever wanted “to finish” because he just rambled on without too much information, even lowering his voice and tension of speech, really just wandered…

So Baier again asked (to this effect), “so, you were in the White House but where was the President that night” and Vietor again said, “he was in the White House.”

Baier: “…in the Situation Room?”

Vietor: “*I* was in the Situation Room, Obama was in the White House…”

So far, no one has said they spoke to Obama in the White House that night, no one has said they actually saw Obama in the White House, and Obama himself has never approached his whereabouts on that evening.

I think its safe to say that Obama was MIA that night, and no one wants to fess up about it. The only person who has testified that he actually spoke with the Boy King that night is Panetta. The conversation was short, and there was only one.

This is the question that needs to be asked, and all things will flow from the answer:

Where was the President of the United States before, during, and after the attack?

KelliFile on Fox just rebroadcast that performance by Obama from Sept. 12 (night after Benghazi attack) on Letterman.

It shows Letterman filling in Obama’s pauses, like que card-prompts, and Obama fumbling, mumbling, pausing, wandering and struggling for the tale to tell, trying to paint that “it’s because of a hateful video” foolishness.

Where was the President of the United States before, during, and after the attack?

BobMbx on May 1, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Obama there “in the White House” or not, the goal there, the method of all these “workaround tales” being told is to keep the name and identity (and presence, participation) of Obama out of it, out of the Benghazi information. They’re not placing him here, there, anywhere specifically or including his name/direction/anything because they’re goal is to keep Obama apart from the entire incident.

I haven’t heard the original story repeated lately, that “Obama was playing cards” during Benghazi, or was “upstairs asleep”…

Tommy VIetor says: “when the attack first happened, he (Obama) was in the Oval Office.”

…then went on about “later briefing” after Baier asked Vietor where Obama was “at ten PM when Amb. Stevens was attacked” and Vietor again wandered off, going into talk about “there was a later briefing”…

Why was there no military response? Because only the President can authorize that. No President, no orders.

Was he stoned? Drunk? Schtupping Valerie somewhere and doesn’t want MO to catch on to it?

BobMbx on May 1, 2014 at 9:08 PM

Here’s the grim reality: either Obama ‘was present’ and REFUSED to issue defensive/offensive military response…

OR he wasn’t there and didn’t.

Either way, same result and same failure to respond while instead a huge effort to “create” a false tale to redirect entire issue away from what it was to what it was most-useful-to-Obama-political-needs (relection) to be.

What’s the problem with a “conspiracy theory” when the theory is proved to be correct?

Theories are possible. Conspiracies are possible. Calling an allegation a “conspiracy theory” hardly refutes the theory. If, as is becoming glaringly apparent, members of the Administration collectively “conspired” to mislead the American public about Benghazi, it fits the definition of a “conspiracy” under every known conspiracy statute.

So, my answer to Crafty Carney (a/k/a “The Sneer”) is, “Yes, it is a conspiracy theory, and it happens to be correct. Oh, and it appears that you, sir, are an unindicted co-conspirator.”

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them, closing a perceived loophole that allowed someone who told a man to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.

RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91–452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968. Under the close supervision of Senator John Little McClellan, the Chairman of the Committee for which he worked, G. Robert Blakey drafted the “RICO Act,” Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, signed into law by Richard M. Nixon. While its original use in the 1970s was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who were actively engaged in organized crime, its later application has been more widespread.

The super-delicious part is bolded.

Do you believe in miracles? Can fate have such a sense of humor to allow a law signed into existence by a president who resigned office under threat of impeachment and became the doormat of politics to be used to prosecute the leaders of the current admin, including one who was a part of the legal team preparing the impeachment process?

Karma is a b*tch. The beautiful part is it provides for a civil course of action which is seperate from the criminal charges.

These people have zero integrity. They will never tell the truth regardless of any evidence. Why bother with trying to get them to do so. As Hillary would say, they require willing suspension of disbelief.

There was a 2nd Big Lie told in those early days….one no one is mentioning. I just went back and read the transcripts from Susan Rice’s appearances on THIS WEEK and MEET THE PRESS. First she said there was a small demonstration at the compound, then militants took advantage of the opportunity and launched an attack.

Bit she also said there was “no actionable intelligence” that an attack was imminent. Another lie. And WHERE did she get that talking point from?!